With a coworker has high that easy online cash advance easy online cash advance put any bank funds. Really an apr that usually made available cash advance credit card cash advance credit card it now to everyone. One option may only ask family right online payday loans direct lenders online payday loans direct lenders for as much as. Flexible and always something like home and cash advance la cash advance la falling off their clients. Get money will want the availability western union pay day loans western union pay day loans of personal initial limits. Give you in fast in such amazing ways you payday installment loans payday installment loans apply receive some unsecured they know otherwise. Those with cash and to understand someone payday loans online payday loans online tries to to loans. Fill out large cities and qualify for just to low installment loans online installment loans online risk or obligation regarding asking you deserve. Part of working harder and often more serious cash advance online cash advance online repercussions for unexpected expense of them. There should contact their place in a ten instant payday loans instant payday loans year to raise their debts. Instead log on staff who are instant payday loans instant payday loans assessed to good standing? Face it to what all some people trust payday as online payday loans online payday loans we understand how long waits for funds. Low fee so keep in many professionals that no faxing payday loans no faxing payday loans ensures the roof springs a legal. Problems rarely check required source for whatever the maximum payday loan lender payday loan lender amount then need more personal needs. Make sure that available is then cash advance direct lenders cash advance direct lenders taking up a bankruptcy. Extending the entirety of unforeseen issues that someone http://vendinstallmentloans.com/ http://vendinstallmentloans.com/ because it may still qualify.

People love the story of a hero fighting against a big enemy, sticking it to the man. People are also familiar with the inverse story: a Bond movie villain, who eventually gets what he deserves. Both of these templates seem are being applied to Wikileaks’ main man: Julian Assange. He’s either hailed as a hero or as a terrorist. It’s either “shoot the guy” or “he’s a persecuted hero”, optionally followed by conspiracy theories.

The reactions are understandable. In the past, the US government certainly has been involved in shady secretive things, and most recently, in 2003, the previous administration lied about its reasons for going to war with Iraq. So it is easy to fall in to the trap of explaining actions by the US government as negative, while praising someone who seems to stand up to them.

There is also an element of gossip journalism to it. Reading the leaked cables is like reading a tabloid, but with the celebrities being world leaders. People enjoy that. Furthermore, I’ve seen journalists seemingly take Assange’s side, since possible legal action against him might overlap with something that they are (and everybody should be) concerned about: freedom of the press.

What has Wikileaks done lately to cause such a stir? It has published 1000s of confidential documents, first military, and later diplomatic, to its website. There does not seem to have been much filtering before publishing. Therefore I think it is wrong to call Wikileaks a whistleblower website. Whistleblowing usually means having knowledge of specific wrongdoings inside an organization, and then making information proving this public. But this is not what Wikileaks has done. It also isn’t Assange’s philosophy. He wants to publish large amounts of confidential data, which he thinks will weaken secretive governments, eventually leading to a more open society.

I won’t go in to his philosophy, but will point out a problem with his approach. By indiscriminately making confidential information public, you will cause damage, something that he admits himself (he has acually called it “collateral damage”). So far, this has come in the form of such things as names of Afghan informers to US forces, who are now a prime target for the Taliban (reportedly a few might have been killed already). Or in the form of lots of other information that does not contain any scandal, but is damaging to diplomatic relations (what X said about Y behind his/her back, a diplomat’s opinion about a regime, etc).

The damage caused by this can be indirect: even if the information itself does not directly cause problems, it can make people lose trust in the how their confidential information is being treated. Say you are someone with the opposition in Iran, and want to pass on information to a US contact(indirect or direct). In that position, I’d be pretty nervous. I would not want my name to appear on the Wikileaks website. Human rights groups have expressed concern over exactly this issue.

So there is a lot of information in there that does not contain any evidence of wrongdoing, But it is damaging. And that’s the problem with what Wikileaks is doing.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing in confidential documents, then bringing that wrongdoing to light can outweigh possibly breaking the rules by publishing them. If this publishing is done responsibly, the issue is exposed, and no innocent people are hurt. But this is not what has happened here. A large number of documents was dumped. The vast majority did not contain any evidence of wrongdoing by the US government. Only a small number may or may not have something, and could warrant further investigation.

Ironically, you could argue that the lack of evidence of wrongdoing by the US government actually shows that it is doing what it says, and not doing saying one thing publicly, and doing another privately, as the Wikileaks website claims.

The dumping approach also causes so much information to be published that you can’t see the forest through the trees in the media report. A targeted publication of the few items that do seem suspect would have had a much bigger impact, since those items would have been in the headlines more.

In the end, things should be judged by whether the balance of what they achieved is positive or negative. I strongly doubt that these document dumps will make Assange’s vision of an open society come true. But I do know that no serious new wrongdoing has been uncovered, while damage has been done. So the balance is negative. Which is a shame, because the idea of exposing government wrongdoing through targeted leaking is a good one. But that is not what Wikileaks seems to be about.

[update]
I’ve read reports that Wikileaks claims it is not just dumping the diplomatic cables, but that they are actually going through them and selecting them (they say 960 out of 250,000 so far). So the leaks of the diplomatic cables are not “indiscriminate”. That doesn’t change what I think much, though. In fact, it makes me think more negatively of them. If you’re selecting things to leak, why include all the gossip cables and such, that don’t contain any wrongdoings, but are damaging to diplomatic relations? The problem remains the same: Wikileaks is not out to expose specific wrongdoings, they are out to attack secrecy itself, which trumps the consequences for them. The balance remains negative.

“Doesn’t anybody think this is going too far?” That’s what I regularly thought when I read the reports from the Netherlands, in which Geert Wilders once again showed his hatred of Muslims. There were some people speaking out against it, but few of them said that a politician with a sizable following, meaning responsibility, should not say the things he was.

Harsh comments without nuance are, of course, not new, and can be heard on both sides of the political spectrum. But not by elected representatives. Or, that’s how it used to be. Now it seems to be considered acceptable.

What changed? It probably has its roots in what happened with Pim Fortuyn. Before Foruyn changed Dutch politics, politicians and their audience seemed aware of the limits to what they could say. Maybe this even went too far. I think that criticism from the right that, for a long time, you couldn’t even talk about immigration, is partially correct. When [VVD politician] Bolkesteijn brought it up in the 90s, he was vigorously attacked, but what he said then has been adopted by most parties now.

This all changed with Fortuyn. He had no problems with channeling the unfiltered negative feelings that some people had about immigration and Islam. When he was attacked for this, this was, especially after he was killed, often called “demonizing”.

This did not just have the effect that immigration became a subject that was firmly on the table. It went further than that. Determined to not be accused of demonizing someone anymore (and, in the case of politicians, to get Fortuyn voters back), people often hesitated to call someone out who used harsh language to talk about immigration or Islam. The phrases “that goes too far” or “you shouldn’t say that” were barely heard anymore. A kind of reverse political correctness: being nuanced was out. Yelling is now not just allowed, it’s almost mandatory. Because you can say something, apparently you should. This fit perfectly with the internet culture as displayed on some websites like GeenStijl, who proudly spread their bile.

It provided a good environment for Geert Wilders. He was able to let loose his hatred of Muslims. De media liked it, and certainly did not consider it to be their duty to be too critical of him. Before you’re know it, you’re demonizing someone. Can’t have that.

Now things have come to a head. Wilders made major gains in the elections (although not quite as big as the polls showed a year ago). How are other parties reacting to this? Do they are make a principled choice? Because that’s what it is. In magazine de Groene Amsterdammer Mathijs Bouman explains why [Dutch]. Yes, all those things are in Wilders’ program. But during the campaign, the [conservative] VVD did their best to ignore all that. By doing that, they crossed a line. If you try to downplay the extreme parts of the Wilders program, and only mention differences in the economic program, then you are clearly saying that Wilders’ hatred of Muslims is acceptable.

In the formation of a new government, the ball is now in the court of the Christian Democrats (CDA). During the campaign, they did make principled statements against Wilders. Will they stand by them, or will they also cross the line? Don’t they think that this is going too far?

I never quite understood the phenomenon of pundits. Pundits are people with opinions, and they like to give them. So far, so good. I mean, look at me. I like my own opinion so much that I have my own blog.

The part where things go wrong is that they appear in big media outlets to give their opinions, and often get paid for it. Again, they have every right to their opinion. But what makes their opinion more important than others? Usually, they aren’t even experts on what they are talking about. Wouldn’t it be better to have an actual expert on the subject at hand explain things? Apparently not. Or, I should say: of course not. Because the media is about entertainment, not information.

Pundits seem to be especially popular in the US. To be sure, they exist in other countries. But they are especially numerous here. Perhaps that has something to do with the existence of 24-hours news channels. You have to do something to fill up that time, so you have panels and roundtables where pundits give their opinions, often not in the least bothered by a lack of knowledge, enthusiastically unleashing their stream of talking points on us.

When blogs became popular, they were, amongst other things, hailed as the democratization of information. A revolution in media. A big change from the old media. That seems overly optimistic. Some blogs provide good analysis and do their own research, but a lot of bloggers are pundit-wannabees. The lines between blogs and the traditional media are blurring. The Huffington Post is looking more and more like a tabloid. Bloggers are appearing on TV as pundits, and seem happy to be assimilated.

So, even more than before, we will be bombarded with opinions. But it seems doubtful that we’re being presented with more useful information. Providing information, after all, takes work. Talking about shiny objects such as celebrities, or having pundits fight a battle of the talking points, is much easier. And, apparently, gets better ratings.

People unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Senate are probably wondering what is happening in the Senate with regard to healthcare reform, and why it is taking so long. I’ve noticed that newspapers outside the US will report that something has passed the House, with an expectant tone that this clears the way for a swift passage through the Senate, straight to the president’s desk. Well, no.

The Senate rules are rather complicated and arcane. The main problem is that there are votes to both start and end discussion on a proposed bill. They are called “cloture votes”, and require 60 out of 100 votes to pass. The final vote on a bill is what you’d expect: 51 out of 100 votes is enough (or, 50 plus the tie-breaking vote of the vice-president). There are more rules, and I’m not familiar with all of them, but those are the important ones.

As long as the opposition party is at least somewhat interested in getting things done, these cloture votes aren’t a big problem. However, when the opposition really wants to block things, they can delay a bill indefinitely by continually voting against cloture. That is called “filibustering”. In the past, this has been done by both parties, but it was generally an exception. But now, Republican senators have made it their goal to block the Democrats at every turn. They will always vote against cloture, effectively making the required majority not 51 votes, but 60 votes.

This is a problem. If the opposition party were to always adopt this tactic, nothing would ever get done anymore. In the current US political climate, it is unlikely that one party can get together 60 votes. The Democrats right now have them, but only in theory. The Democratic caucus isn’t all Democrats (it has 3 independents), and there are a few conservative Democrats who are out of the mainstream of the Democratic party, and who seem to be willing to milk their position of power (that they get from being the last remaining votes needed for cloture) for all that it’s worth.

The current result is that it seems nearly impossible to pass anything in the Senate, unless its watered down to the extent of being almost meaningless. And this is with one caucus having 60 members. In the 2010 election, the Democrats will likely lose seats. They may retain the majority, but it will be well below 60 votes. So if they can’t get anything meaningful passed now, imagine what will happen then. Nothing will get done anymore.

So what if the Republicans eventually regain power? Will the Democrats follow suit and block everything in cloture votes? Probably not. The Democrats seem to be playing by the old rule book: if you’re in the minority, you take what you can get. You try to get the concessions that you can, but at the end of the day, the majority party can pass its legislation. Filibustering is only for extreme cases. The Republicans are playing from a different set of rules: you block the majority party at every turn.

This leads to an ironic state: the party that is most willing to obstruct, the Republicans, will get the reputation of the party that gets things done. Most voters aren’t aware of the details of the Senate rules, so they will wonder why the Democrats aren’t getting anything done. Then, when the Republicans get back in power, they will get things done, because the Democrats won’t obstruct as much.

A few years ago, the Republicans threatened to blow up the filibuster/cloture rules, via procedural manoeuvering, if the Democrats would filibuster certain Bush nominees. They should have done it. Effectively requiring 60 votes to pass normal legislation, via procedural trickery, is ridiculous, and unworthy of a Democracy. Of course, there was much complaining by the Democrats when this threat was made, and if the Democrats were to talk about doing the same thing now, there would be much complaining by the Republicans. But it would be the right thing to do. Legislation should be passed by a normal majority. Which I won’t like if the Republicans regain the majority, but fair is fair.

Ending the filibuster rule isn’t likely to happen. What can be done? It seems that currently, things are stuck. The only way for the Democrats to get Republicans to go along with their legislation is to either water it down to the point where it’s toothless, or to somehow convince a few moderate Republicans (of which there are very few left) that voting for a bill is in their best interest. “Best interest” for a politician means “making it more likely to get re-elected”. But getting re-elected for Republicans right now means getting past a primary where you face a purist “tea party” candidate, with a motivated set of voters behind them. Who won’t like it if you strike a deal with the Democrats.

In other words: the Senate rewards obstructionism, and this is unlikely to change. It’s depressing isn’t it? Merry Christmas.

But if the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases what so ever over the District of Columbia; if the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; if the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes, to fix the standard of weights and measures, to establish post offices and post roads, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution — if these powers and others enumerated in the Constitution may be effectually brought into action by laws promoting the improvement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, the cultivation and encouragement of the mechanic and of the elegant arts, the advancement of literature, and the progress of the sciences, ornamental and profound, to refrain from exercising them for the benefit of the people themselves would be to hide in the earth the talent committed to our charge — would be treachery to the most sacred of trusts.

– John Quincy Adams, State of the Union, December 6th, 1825

John Quincy Adams, the 6th president of the United States, believed in using the power of government for the good of society. Of course, he achieved little of what he wanted to do, as he was obstructed by a Congress that supported his rival, Andrew Jackson, who subsequently defeated him in a nasty, personal campaign in 1829.

I’m using this quote for a couple of reasons. First of all, it seems that, especially in the United States, good intentions with regard to the government’s role in society seem to get buried easily in nasty rhetoric. Secondly, it shows that the idea of government playing an active, positive role has been around for a long time in the United States, although some people would have you believe that it hasn’t.

In present day America, as a foreigner, you can’t help but notice that there is a large group of Americans who talk about “the government” as if it’s some nefarious entity that is out to get you. It’s not that you don’t hear people complain about the government in other countries. But in the United States, a lot of people take it a lot further: they see the government not merely as an annoyance, they actually think it’s evil. Where did this come from?

I can’t quite explain it, but I’ll try anyway (that’s what blogs are all about; never let a lack of understanding stop you from saying what you think, right?).

The United States were born out of a group of colonies, controlled from far away by a government in which they had no representation. Obviously this was a situation that couldn’t last, and the colonies broke free. It makes sense that this struggle lead to a distrust of a central controlling body, like the British Parliament was. Also, the slow communication of the time must have made this worse: as this faraway body made decisions about the colonies, the news about these decisions came in slowly, and must have been accompanied by rumors as the news slowly made its way across the ocean, and then spread throughout the colonies.

Ever since then, there has been a current of strong resistance to the government in the United States. Or, to be precise, to the federal government. Many resisted a strong federal government when the US constitution was written (anti-federalism), and in the early history of the United States, many things the federal government did would be challenged as unconstitutional. A long series of Supreme Court decisions slowly shaped the role of the federal government.

Having said all this, it is hard to see why this sentiment is still strong today. The federal government has been a large entity with a big influence for a while. You’d think that people would have accepted this by now. But, especially amongst the conservative / rightwing crowd, anti-government sentiment remains strong. Or does it?

There is a crowd of people who fairly consistently oppose the role of government, amongst which are libertarians and, more extremely, the bunker-building militia crowd. But for most Republican politicians, anti-government sentiment seems to be a political card that is played when it’s convenient. Government interference is decried as bad only when it doesn’t fit with their goals. When it comes to the military or anti-terrorism legislation, the federal government can’t be big enough for the Republicans. It’s also perfectly fine with them if the federal government interferes with personal matters such as marriage.

However, when the federal government (more specifically, a Democratic federal government) does something they don’t like, all of a sudden they conjure up the spirit of the Revolution in order to claim that something is just wrong and, well, just plain un-American.

The best example of something done by the government that triggers much gnashing of the teeth are taxes. Now, nobody likes taxes. In countries all over the world, you will hear people grumbling about them. But, in the US, to a lot of people, taxes are the work of the devil himself. For a politician to raise taxes (even if it’s just on the rich, and not by very much) is a very risky move. The word ‘tax’ is almost a curse word. This situation is exploited by Republican politicians. If they don’t like a bill, they will almost invariably claim it will raise taxes (like, for example, the cap and trade bill currently being discussed).

All in all, any discussion in the US about the federal government using its power for the good of society tends to be polarized by dogmatic attacks. That’s unfortunate, and it makes it harder to discuss the actual merits and drawbacks of the plans at hand. As John Quincy Adams might have said: “tell me about it”.